Bangalore District Court
Parappana Agrahara P S vs Thimmaraju Doddathimmaraya on 6 November, 2024
KABC010143942015
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 6th day of November 2024
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Mala N.D.,
BAL., LL.M.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.719/2015
COMPLAINANT : State by Parappana Agrahara
Police Station, Bengaluru.
(By : Public prosecutor)
Vs.
ACCUSED NO.1 : Thimmaraju @ Dodda
: Thimmaraya,
S/o Venkataramanappa,
Aged about 42 years,
r/o 24th Main, 1st Cross,
Agara, H.S.R. Layout,
Bengaluru - 102.
(By : Sri Advocate for A-1)
2 S.C. No.719/2015
TABULATION OF EVENTS
1) Occurence of the offence : 01.03.2015 -
and time 08.00 hours to
02.03.2015 6.30 hours
2) Report of the offence and : 02.03.2015
time 21.15 hours
3) Name of the complainant : Sri Thimmaraya
4) Date of commencement of : 14.12.2015
trial
5) Date of closure of trial : 13.12.2022
6) Offences complained of : Sections 302 and 201
r/w Sec. 34 of IPC
7) Opinion of the Judge : Found not guilty
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Parappana Agrahara Police Station has submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 201 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.
3 S.C. No.719/2015
2. The prosecution case unfolds that, accused No.1, CW.2 - Thimmarayappa @ Chikkathimmaraya, CW.3 - Jaya @ Deepa and deceased Venkatesh are the brothers and sister and joint owners of a plot situated at 1st Cross, 24th Main, HSR Layout, Bengaluru City, due to financial difficulties accused No.1 availed loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from CW.7 - A.N. Venkatachala by depositing title deeds of said plot and accused No.1 had paid Rs.40,000/- to CW.2 and CW.3 and retained remaining amount with him. The deceased Venkatesh was always insisting accused No.1 to pay his share, which was left unheard by accused No.1, when things stood thus on 01.03.2015 at about 9.00 p.m. accused No.1 went near the house of deceased Venkatesh, at that time deceased Venkatesh demanded his share amount and told him that if he did not pay amount he 4 S.C. No.719/2015 would lodge complaint with the police, there was exchange of words between accused No.1 and deceased, again on the same day, at about 11.30 p.m. deceased Venkatesh came near the house of accused No.1 picked up quarrel, as such accused No.1 assaulted him, deceased went towards police station, by that time accused accused No.1 also followed the deceased, stopped him at Manjunatha Bar and Restaurant situated at 24th Main, 6th Cross, HSR Layout, Bengaluru city and again picked up quarrel with deceased Venkatesh, by that time accused No.1 squeezed the neck of deceased , as a result both accused No.1 and deceased fell down, by that time deceased Venkatesh tried to assault accused No.1 with a stone, in that process accused No.1 took the said stone from the possession of deceased and with an intention of causing 5 S.C. No.719/2015 his death assaulted on him from the said stone on his cheek and on his left portion of head, as a result deceased sustained grievous injuries and became unconscious.
3. Further, accused No.1 with the assistance of absconding accused No.2 in his auto rickshaw shifted the deceased, while proceeding in the autorickshaw deceased succumbed to injuries, as such accused No.1 and absconding accused No.2 with an intention of disappearing the evidence took the dead body of deceased Venkatesh in the said autorickshaw, thrown the same in Rayasandra Tank situated within the limits of Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru City.
4. Further, on 02.03.2015 at about 6.00 p.m., dead body of deceased Venkatesh was found in a tank 6 S.C. No.719/2015 within the village limits of Rayasandra, jurisdictional police has received the message, removed the dead body of the deceased, found a pocket calender in his pant, with the help of pocket calender contacted accused No.1 who is the brother of deceased , he came near the dead body and identified the said dead body and lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police. Accordingly, FIR has been registered in Cr.No.94/2015 of Parappana Agrahara police station for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 201 of IPC.
5. Initially, no names of accused were mentioned in the FIR, during the course of investigation, on suspect, police have made interrogation of accused No.1 and even they have recorded the statements of other family members of accused No.1, by that time it was revealed that on 01.03.2015 at about 8.00 p.m. 7 S.C. No.719/2015 deceased was under the influence of alcohol and on the same day at about 11.30 p.m., deceased picked up quarrel with the petitioner relating to mortgaging of their house property and also relating to his share of amount, from his childhood deceased Venkatesh had lost his eye sight, he had suffered paralysis stroke, in the quarrel accused No.1 has caused murder of deceased and along with absconding accused No.2 attempted to disappear the evidence of alleged offence. Thereafter, accused No.1 was apprehended, arrest procedure was conducted and produced him before the jurisdictional magistrate, he was sent to judicial custody.
6. The investigation officer recorded the statements of witnesses and other official witnesses, conducted the inquest of the dead body as per Ex.P.16, 8 S.C. No.719/2015 also referred the dead body for post mortem and obtained report as per Ex.P.13, seized the stone allegedly used for commission of the offence through seizure mahazar as per Ex.P.17 also conducted the spot mahazar in the presence of witnesses at the place where the dead body was thrown as per Ex.P.18 and recorded the statements of eye witnesses and mahazar witnesses, also the voluntary statement of accused No.1 and on the basis said voluntary statement which is exhibited at Ex.P.3 investigation officer has conducted seizure mahazar as per Ex.P.17 near the tank bund of Rayasandra. The said stone seized through Ex.P.17 in the presence of witnesses was subjected under P.F. No.35/2015 as per Ex.P.24, the soil and blood stained clothes of deceased seized through spot mahazar conducted as per Ex.P.15 were subjected under P.F. 9 S.C. No.719/2015 No.54/2015 and were referred to forensic examination. After collecting the report from the FSL, the investigation officer having opined that there are prima- facie case, filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 by showing the accused No.2 as absconding accused before the jurisdictional magistrate.
7. Cognizance for the offences shown in the charge sheet was taken against accused No.1 by the learned Magistrate, thereafter a criminal case against accused No.1 was registered in C.C. No.14002/2015 on the file of IX ACMM, Bengaluru, since offences alleged against the accused No.1 are exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the same was committed to the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge. 10 S.C. No.719/2015
8. After committal, the case is registered as S.C. No.719/2015. Prosecution opened the case as required u/s 226 of Cr.P.C. Heard learned counsel for the accused No.1. No grounds made out to discharge the accused No.1. Hence, charge against accused No.1 for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 201 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC was framed, the contents read over and explained to accused No.1, he denied the charges levelled against him and claims to be tried.
9. To prove the ingredients of the offences leveled against the accused No.1, prosecution in all has cited as many as 29 witnesses and among them successfully examined 12 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.12 and got marked 28 documents at Exs.P.1 to P.28, got identified 5 material objects at MO.1 to MO.5. In spite giving sufficient opportunities CW.3, CW.5, CW.13 and 11 S.C. No.719/2015 PW.17/CW.28 have not been secured, hence they have been dropped, evidence of CW.21 to CW.23 has been given up by the prosecution, as not required in order to avoid repetition of evidence and thereby prosecution closes its side evidence.
10. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused No.1 has complied Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., statement of accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded and he has denied all the incriminating material evidence appearing against him and not chosen to lead his side defence evidence.
11. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the available materials on record.
12. The points do arise for my determination are as follows:
12 S.C. No.719/2015
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, death of Venkatesh is homicidal?
2) Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 01.03.2015 at about 9.00 p.m. when accused No.1 came near the house of deceased Venkatesh they both had quarrel and also on the same day at about 11.30 p.m., deceased Venkatesh came near the house of accused No.1, there was a quarrel among them, when deceased was proceeding towards police station to lodge a complaint against the accused No.1, he followed and stopped him in front of Manjunatha Bar and Restaurant situated at 24th Main, 6th Cross Road, HSR Layout, Bengaluru city within the limits of Parappana Agrahara police station the accused No.1 again picked up quarrel with deceased and in order to commit his murder squeezed the neck of deceased, they both fell on the ground, deceased tried to assault accused No.1 with the stone, by that time the accused No.1 snatched the same and hit on the cheek and left portion of head of deceased, he sustained grievous injuries as a result he lost conscious, while proceeding in an autorickshaw of absconding accused No.2 deceased succumbed to the injuries 13 S.C. No.719/2015 and thereby committed the murder of deceased Venkatesh, which is punishable u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt on the aforesaid date, time and place under the aforesaid circumstances in furtherance of common intention accused No.1 along with absconding accused No.2 in order to screen the offence of murder, took the dead body of the deceased in the autorickshaw of absconding accused No.2 and thrown the same in the Rayasandra tank of Parappana Agrahara police station limits and thereby destroyed the evidence which is punishable u/s 201 r/w 34 of IPC?
4) What Order ?
13. On appreciation of evidence, documents and for the foregoing reasons, my findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Affirmative;
Point No.2: In the Negative;
Point No.3: In the Negative;14 S.C. No.719/2015
Point No.4: As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
14. POINT NO.1: It is the case of the
prosecution that accused No.1, deceased Venkatesh, CW.2 and CW.3 are brothers and sister and CW.8 - Venkataramanappa is their father. There was a dispute regarding a plot situated in HSR Layout which was mortgaged for Rs.2,50,000/- before CW.7 A.M. Venkatachala by accused No.1. In the said amount Rs.40,000/- was given to CW.2 and CW.3, as no amount was given to deceased's share he always used to demand his share amount and used to quarrel with accused No.1. In that connection, there was a quarrel between deceased and accused No.1 on 01.03.2015 which made the deceased to threaten the accused No.1 15 S.C. No.719/2015 that he will lodge a police complaint against him for cheating, accordingly on the same day, he was proceeding towards police station at about 11.30 p.m. and accused No.1 also followed the deceased, thereafter both of them picked up quarrel, deceased tried to assault accused No.1 with a stone, during that time accused No.1 snatched the said stone and assaulted the deceased on his cheek and left portion of his head which made deceased to sustain grievous injuries, as such he became unconscious and fell down. Therefore, accused No.1 with the assistance of absconding accused No.2 tried to shift deceased in an autorickshaw belonging to absconding accused No.2, while proceeding in the said auto deceased Venkatesh succumbed to injuries. Therefore, in order to make disappearance of the evidence of murder, both of them 16 S.C. No.719/2015 took the dead body of the deceased in an autorickshaw thrown the same in Rayasamudra tank. Later, on the very next day i.e., on 02.03.2015 dead body of the deceased was found, the jurisdictional police noticed a pocket calender in the pant pocket of deceased called the accused No.1, he proceeded to the spot, identified the dead body and he has a lodged a complaint, accordingly a criminal case is registered.
15. During the course of investigation, complainant, brother of deceased was found to be the accused. Upon due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused No.1 along with absconding accused No.2 on the allegation that he assisted the accused No.1 in their attempt to evade evidence of murder. Except an eye witness, the other witnesses are all circumstantial witnesses, therefore it is for the 17 S.C. No.719/2015 prosecution to link all the connecting evidence to chain circumstantial evidences along with the evidence of an eye witness.
16. The statement of CW.2 Thimmaraya @ Chikkathimmaraya who is the second brother of deceased Venkatesh discloses that there was a dispute in their family with regard to a site. It can also be noticed that the deceased Venkatesh was a disabled person, he had lost his left eye sight as he had sustained injury on his left eye when he was in 3rd standard, thereafter he had lost strength of his left hand and suffered paralysis stroke, he had no marriage, he was an alcoholic. Further, it can also be seen from the statement of CW.2 that there were 3 small sheet houses and in one house accused No.1 and his family were residing, in another house deceased and his father were residing, the other house was given to lease, the said property was mortgaged to some other persons for hand 18 S.C. No.719/2015 loan for the purpose of releasing CW.2 and the deceased from jail relating to a kidnap case. Thus, from the materials available on record it can be noticed that there is a dispute regarding the share of the deceased in respect of property which was mortgaged before CW.7.
17. Further the contents of complaint as well as statement of CW.2 discloses that deceased had sustained injury on his cheeks and left portion of the head and it is noticed that after causing the death of deceased he was thrown in the Rayasamudra tank, the contents of complaint as well as statement of CW.2 reveals that the deceased has sustained injuries on his left portion of the head and cheeks. Inquest mahazar which is marked at Ex.P.16 was conducted on 03.03.2015 in the presence of relatives and friends of the deceased who had identified the deceased. In the inquest mahazar it is mentioned that the deceased had sustained grievious injuries on his head by a weapon. The 19 S.C. No.719/2015 post mortem report which is marked at Ex.P.13 reveals the death of deceased is due to combined effect of head injury and antemortem drowning. The evidence adduced by the medical officer PW.9 Dr Venkata Raghava is corroborative with the evidence adduced by the PW.17 R. Vasu, investigation officer and considering the contents of inquest mahazar i.e., Ex.P, 16 and post mortem at Ex.P.13, the evidence adduced by the investigation officer is also corroborative with the evidence of PW.9 Doctor to the effect that the death of deceased Venkatesh is not a natural or accidental, hence there is no doubt of iota to say that the death of Venkatesh is homicidal and hence Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
18. POINTS NO.2 AND 3: These two points are interconnected each other, hence they are taken up together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.20 S.C. No.719/2015
19. The prosecution in order to establish its case has relied on the statement of CW.2 and other circumstantial witnesses and also relies on voluntary statement of accused No.1 along with recoveries said to have been made on the basis of voluntary statement of accused No.1. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of accused person has further relied on the spot mahazar, inquest mahazar, recovery mahazar along with evidence of eye witnesses, mahazar witnesses, doctor evidence, forensic evidence and testimony of police official as well as witnesses based on voluminous documents at Exs.P.1 to P.28 coupled with the material objects identified at MO.1 to MO.5. In this background, it is necessary to discuss the evidence of each witnesses.21 S.C. No.719/2015
20. CW.1 is the accused No.1 in this case. As narrated above on 02.03.2015 the jurisdictional police found the dead body of deceased and on tracing the pocket calendar from the dead body, accused No.1 was called to identify the dead body. Accordingly, he went to the spot, identified the dead body as his brother Venkatesh, he lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police that his brother was killed by some unknown person and prayed to take necessary action and it is in course of investigation this complainant himself found as accused No.1. Therefore, the prosecution had examined another brother of the deceased CW.2 - Thimmarayappa as PW.1. He has admitted his relationship with deceased and accused No.1. That apart, he pleaded his ignorance about the manner of death of deceased brother. According to 22 S.C. No.719/2015 this witness, deceased Venkatesh and accused No.1 were cordial, there was no quarrel or ill-will. The deceased Venkatesh was an alcoholic, he used to pick up quarrel with himself and accused No.1, he completely denied the allegation against the accused No.1 that he has caused murder of his brother deceased Venkatesh, he denies the statement and further statements stated to have been given before the police.
He was subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution. He had denied the entire suggestion of the prosecution and nothing substantial has been elicited from his evidence.
21. PW.2 - Chalapathi has deposed that, he knew accused No.1 and about five years back accused No.1 and his father approached him to sell their property and received Rs.2,50,000/-, he has specifically 23 S.C. No.719/2015 deposed that the said amount was received by the father of the deceased CW.8 Venkataramanappa, accused No.1 Thimmaraju, CW.2 - Thimmarayappa, sister CW.3 - Chaya and the deceased Venkatesh. Since the documents of the said site were not proper he had asked the money back from the father of accused No.1, he came to know about the death of deceased Venkatesh. He has denied having given statement before the police. The prosecution subjected him for cross-examination by treating him as hostile. In his cross-examination also he denied the statement before the police that he came to know about the death of deceased by accused No.1 and also effort of accused No.1 to evade the evidence of murder with the assistance of their tenant Selvaraju, an auto driver and 24 S.C. No.719/2015 nothing substantial has been elicited from the cross- examination of this witness also.
22. PW.3 has spoken regarding forwarding of FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate and denied the suggestion of the defence counsel as to say that he has not forwarded FIR immediately after registration of the case.
23. PW.4 - Paramananda Methri is one of the police officials has deposed regarding production of 4 mud and blood stained clothes of deceased collected by the medical officer during the course of post mortem before the SHO, his cross-examination is once again the denial of entire chief examination.
24. PW.5 - Muniyappa is cited as a witness who was present during the inquest, however this witness 25 S.C. No.719/2015 has denied his presence during the inquest, he has totally denied by saying that deceased is not known person, he is not aware of his death and also denied his statement. In his cross-examination also he denied the entire suggestion of the defence to the effect that he was present at the time of inquest and has given statement as per Ex.P.6.
25. PW.11 - Sathish Kumar is an inquest mahazar witness, he has identified the signature in the inquest and at the same time pleaded ignorance about its contents by stating that when he was having tea in the HSR Layout, police have obtained his signature on the blank paper, thereby he turned hostile towards the case of prosecution and nothing substantial has been elicited from his cross-examination.
26 S.C. No.719/2015
26. Another witness PW.20 is also an inquest mahazar witness, he has also turned hostile saying that he had signed the said inquest mahazar i.e., Ex.P.16 near Karantaka Bakery. He has pleaded his ignorance about the death of deceased Venkatesh, he was subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution. He denied the suggestion of the prosecution that he was present in the mortuary while conducting inquest.
27. PW.21 - Smt. Manjula has deposed that she has seen the dead body in the Victoria Hospital, she identified the dead body which are marked at Ex.P.11 and she has also stated that she came to know about the murder of the deceased . The prosecution treated her as hostile and subjected her to cross-examination. Except admitting her presence while conducting the 27 S.C. No.719/2015 inquest she has denied all other suggestion of the prosecution including her statement before the police.
28. Another witness PW.12 - R. Muniraju is the seizure mahazar witness, he has deposed that he was called by the Parappana Agrahara police, he affixed his signature at Ex.P.17 beside the Rayasamudra Tank. He has also deposed that police have shown him a pocket calendar. In his cross-examination he has stated that the contents of complaint were not readover to him and pleaded his ignorance as to say how many members were signed on the said mahazar and also pleaded that he is not aware of anything about this case.
29. PW.13 - A. Muniraju is also a seizure mahazar witness regarding seizure of pocket calendar 28 S.C. No.719/2015 as per Ex.p.17. This witness except identifying his signature in Ex.P.17 pleaded his ignorance to say that police have not recovered any pocket calender in his presence, he denied the suggestion from the prosecution that he was present while seizing the pocket calendar as per Ex.P.17. In the cross- examination of the defence counsel, he has stated that he was not aware of the any of the things, he affixed his signature at Ex.P.17 at the instance of police, he pleaded his ignorance about contents of seizure mahazar.
30. PW.14 - Sakappa is an inquest mahazar witness. He has stated that he is a witness of both inquest and spot mahazars marked at Exs.P.19 and P.15 respectively. He has deposed that, he was present when the I.O. has conducted inquest mahazar in the 29 S.C. No.719/2015 place where the dead body of the deceased was thrown and he has also stated that he was present while conducting the spot mahazar as per Ex.P.25 by saying that the inquest mahazar was conducted near the Rayasamudra tank and seizure mahazar at HSR layout. He identified the stone as well as the accused at the time of conducting the mahazar. He has specifically sated that the police have conducted spot mahazar by recovering a stone allegedly used for the commission of offence and the said stone was shown to the police by the accused person. In his cross-examination also he asserted the similar version and denied the suggestion of the defence counsel that he is deposing false evidence.
31. PW.15 - Nagaraj is cited as an eye witness. However, he has completely turned hostile by saying 30 S.C. No.719/2015 that accused was not known to him. He was not aware of the manner of his death and he do not know to say who has caused the murder of deceased and the police have obtained his statement while he was taking tea near Karnataka Bakery about 3 years back. He was subjected to cross-examination and through out the cross-examination he denied the entire suggestion of the prosecution as to say that he has not witnessed the incident. This eye witness being a prime witness completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In the cross-examination also he has asserted that he has not seen any of the incident pertaining to this case.
32. PW.16 - Jayachandra has deposed regarding shifting of dead body to Rayasamudra tank in the auto. He pleaded his ignorance about the entire case of the prosecution, also denied having given statement before 31 S.C. No.719/2015 the police, he has specifically stated about 3 to 4 years back when he was in the shop the police brought accused No.1 to his shop and obtained his signature. However, he pleaded his ignorance about the contents of the document on which he affixed his signature.
33. PW.20 - Murugesh is an inquest mahazar witness, he has completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution by pleading his ignorance about the contents of inquest except admitting his signature. Nothing substantial has been elicited from his cross- examination by the prosecution.
34. PW.10 - Hemanth Kumar is the spot mahazar witness, he identified the stone seized while conducting the spot mahazar as per Ex.P.15. Further he has deposed that about 5 years back he signed Ex.P.15 32 S.C. No.719/2015 near a provision store pertaining to murder case and at the same time he pleaded ignorance about the contents of spot mahazar and also stated that there was no seizure of property by the police in his presence. He was subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution and denied the entire suggestion of the prosecution about his presence and involvement in the prosecution.
35. PW.6 - Manju is a police official has deposed regarding submission of material object i.e., a stone seized under P.F. No.35/2015 to the FSL for examination, nothing much has been elicited in his cross-examination.
36. PW.7 - Srinivas Babu is also police official and has deposed that himself and other three police officials were deputed to apprehend the accused No.1. 33 S.C. No.719/2015 Accordingly, on 05.03.2015 they found accused No.1 near the bakery situated in the main road of Somasandrapalya and brought him to the police station on the same day at about 11.00 a.m., he denied the suggestion of the defence counsel that he was not deputed to secure accused No.1.
37. PW.8 - Mohan Kumar is a police official has deposed that he was deputed to shift the dead body of the deceased Venkatesh to the Victoria Hospital for the purpose of inquest and accordingly he shifted the dead body tot he Victoria Hospital and after inquest by the concerned medical officer he handed over the dead body to the custody of their relatives. Again in his cross-examination he denied the suggestion of the defence counsel that, he is not the one who shifted the 34 S.C. No.719/2015 dead body to the hospital and handed over the same to the custody of the relatives of the deceased .
38. PW.9 - Dr Venkata Raghava is the Medical Officer, who has conducted the post mortem of the deceased Venaktesh and also examined the material objects MO.1 to MO.5 i.e., mud and blood stained clothes of deceased along with a stone allegedly used for the commission of offence. He has deposed about the injuries sustained by the deceased on his forehead and left cheeks, abrasions over the neck portion, grievous injury on his head, he has opined that the death was caused due to the combined effect of head injury and antemortem drowning. He has also spoken about the examination of material objects and has opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased were may be by the stone - MO.5. In his cross-examination 35 S.C. No.719/2015 he has stated that there was no blood stain on the MO.5 - stone allegedly used for the commission of offence and denied the other suggestion of the defence counsel.
39. PW.19 - Venkataramanappa, who is cited as known person to the family of accused No.1 and deceased. In his chief examination he has stated that there was no transaction between himself and father of deceased and accused No.1, he pleads his ignorance about the property documents of accused family and also stated that he do not know how and by whom the death of deceased Venkatesh was occurred, he denied having given the statement before the police and thereby he was completely turned hostile, though he was cross-examined by the prosecution nothing has been elicited from his evidence.
36 S.C. No.719/2015
40. PW.17 and PW.18 are the investigation officers, among them PW.17 - R. Vasu has conducted almost all the investigation. This PW.17 has deposed that on 02.03.2015 accused No.1 had lodged complaint about the death of his brother deceased Venkatesh, accordingly present case came to be registered in Cr.No.94/2015 for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 201 of IPC. Later, he visited the place of incident in the presence of accused No.1 as well as panch witnesses and drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.p.17, seized one pocket calendar. Thereafter, referred the dead body to the mortuary of Victoria Hospital through his official.
41. It is further deposed that on 03.03.2015 at about 8 to 11 a.m. he conducted inquest in the presence of CW.12 Murugesh, CW.13 - Srinivas and 37 S.C. No.719/2015 CW.14 Sathishkumar and thereafter referred the dead body of the deceased to the post mortem. He has deposed regarding recording of statements of CW.2 to CW.9 and stated that he has deputed his police officials to apprehend accused No.1 accordingly on 05.03.2015 he was apprehended and brought before him, as such requested jurisdictional court to treat complainant Thimmaraju as accused No.1. It is further deposed by this witness that he has recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.1 and on the basis of his voluntary statement he visited Agara layout of HSR Layout, where accused shown a stone allegedly used for commission of offence and the same was seized in the presence of accused as well as panch witnesses as per Ex.P.15. After conducting arrest procedure, caused production of accused before the jurisdictional court. 38 S.C. No.719/2015 He has further deposed regarding recording of further statement of CW.5 Paramesh, deposed about obtaining of post mortem report as per Ex.P.13. He has deposed regarding receiving of mud and blood stained clothes from the medical officer through his police officials and subjected the same under P.F. No.54/2015. He identified the said clothes i.e., MO.1 to MO.4 and deposed that after conclusion of investigation filed charge sheet before the jurisdictional court
42. During the cross-examination of this PW.18 he has denied the suggestion of defence counsel that he has brought some other clothes and made it as material objects of this case and denied the further suggestion of the defence counsel that he has submitted false charge sheet against the accused person. In so far as the I.O. R. Vasu - PW.17 is 39 S.C. No.719/2015 concerned he was not subjected for cross-examination by the accused counsel. From the order sheet it can be seen that in spite of giving sufficient opportunity the prosecution has failed to secure this PW.17. Therefore, evidence of PW.17 i.e., investigation officer is incomplete before this court.
43. From over all discussion on the evidence of each witnesses, it can be seen that it is the specific case of the prosecution that accused having the grudge pertaining to the property dispute has committed murder of deceased Venkatesh, who is the brother of accused No.1, CW.2 and CW.3.
44. Admittedly, the complainant who lodged the complaint before the jurisdictional police turned into accused during investigation, as such the prosecution 40 S.C. No.719/2015 has relied more on the statement and further statement of CW.2 who is an another brother of deceased and accused No.1 herein. The oral testimony of this PW.1
- Thimmarayappa is totally contrary to his statement and further statement as he has deposed completely hostile to the case of prosecution. According to him, there was no dispute with respect to the property of among their brother and sister, they were cordial. He has denied to explain how his young brother was subjected to such a barbaric act which made him to succumb to injuries. Even in the cross-examination nothing substantial was elicited from the mouth of this PW.2.
45. More importantly, one Nagaraja who is examined as PW.15 is cited as an eye witness and the aid witness has denied to state anything regarding the 41 S.C. No.719/2015 alleged incident, he pleaded his ignorance as to say who has caused the murder of deceased Venkatesh, he failed to identify the accused No.1. This eye witnesses is giving witness to the prosecution case. He has failed to depose regarding alleged incident, he denied his statement before the police also and his oral testimony is entirely contrary to his statement stated to have been given before the police. No corroboration to his evidence. In addition, sister of the deceased as well as accused No.1, not appeared before the court to depose regarding the motive of alleged incident as contended by the prosecution. The other circumstantial witnesses i.e., PW.16 Jayachandra and PW.18 N. Venkataramana Reddy also have supported the case of prosecution. Another circumstantial witness CW.5 Paramesh remained absent before the court. Inquest witnesses 42 S.C. No.719/2015 PW.11 Sathish Kumar and PW.10 Murugesh have not supported the case of prosecution and completely turned hostile. Hence, their e vidences are not helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused.
46. One more witness i.e., PW.2 Chalapathi before whom the property documents were allegedly mortgaged also became hostile before the court has pleaded his ignorance about the alleged incident as well as about the alleged dispute pertaining to the property among the deceased and his family members including the accused No.1.
47. PW.3 to PW.8 are police personnel they have spoken regarding submission of FIR, production of clothes of the deceased before the SHO, forwarding the 43 S.C. No.719/2015 material objects to the FSL, arrest of accused, handing over the custody of the deceased to his legal heirs, etc., which are not the matter in dispute.
48. PW.5 - Muniyappa, who was allegedly present while conducting the inquest has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Similarly, PW.19 is one of the circumstantial witness has turned hostile and not stated anything about the property of deceased and accused No.1 and his family. This witness is stated in order to establish the motive for the alleged incident. However, he has denied the entire suggestion of the prosecution with respect to lending loan to the accused No.1 and his family by pledging the property documents and also pleaded ignorance regarding contents of statement before the police.
44 S.C. No.719/2015
49. The spot mahazar witnesses PW.12 R. Muniraju and PW.13 A. Muniraju who are witnesses to the seizure mahazar as per Ex.P.17. Among them, PW.12 pleaded about the contents of Ex.P.17. However, he has stated that a pocket calendar was seized in his presence by the police and it was taken out from the pant pocket of the dead body of the deceased Venkatesh. The evidence of this witness is contrary to the evidence of PW.13 A. Muniraju as he pleaded his ignorance regarding contents of mahazar and also stated that police have not seized any calendar in his presence.
50. One more witness to the inquest mahazar as per Ex.P.19 drawn in the place where body of the deceased was found near the Rayasamudra tank. This witness is denied the suggestion of the prosecution that 45 S.C. No.719/2015 he was present while conducting the mahazar of dead body of deceased Venkatesh and was also witness to the spot mahazar conducted where the recovery of stone was made by the police, he reasserted his version in the cross-examination. Thus, except the evidence of seizure mahazar R. Muniraju, Ex.P.17 recovery of pocket calendar, PW.14 Sakappa regarding panchanama of the dead body in the place where it was found. There is nothing before the court to establish the motive for the alleged incident. Admittedly, the deceased, accused No.1, CW.2 and CW.3 and CW.8 are all family members, nothing has been elicited with respect to property dispute in order to establish the motive for the alleged incident.
51. More importantly, though the contents of complaint and statements of CW.2 does not reveal about witnessing the alleged incident by any witness PW.15 - 46 S.C. No.719/2015 Nagaraj, during the course of investigation he was cited as an eye witness, his statement was recorded where he has stated that he has witnessed the alleged incident or murder of deceased / accused No.1. However, he has turned hostile before this court by denying to depose about witnessing the alleged incident.
52. More importantly, the investigation officer who has conducted almost all the investigation i.e., PW.17 remained absent before the court and failed to subject himself for cross-examination. Under such circumstances, his evidence cannot be reliable evidence as he was not subjected himself for test of cross-examination. Thus, except the evidence of police officials and the another I.O. who has spoken only regarding receiving of clothes of deceased i.e., MO.1 to MO.4 through the police officials from FSL and subjecting the same under P.F. No.54/2015 and also about filing of charge sheet and also the evidence 47 S.C. No.719/2015 of medical officer nothing is elicited before the court to bring home the guilt of accused No.1. No doubt one mahazar witness as per Ex.P.17 speaks regarding recovery of calender in the place where the body of the deceased was found and another mahazar witness Sakappa who has deposed regarding panchanama on the dead body of the deceased as per Ex.P.19. Nothing is before the court to pin point towards the commission of alleged crime by the accused No.1. Admittedly, Ex.P.17 and P.19 i.e., seizure mahazars and mahazar of the dead body was conducted by the investigation officer i.e., PW.17 Vasu R., the then police inspector of Parappana Agrahara police station and the said witness though appeared before the court to depose regarding his investigation remained absent to subject himself for cross-examination. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the mahazars conducted by I.O. as per Ex.P.17 and P.19 were fully established. With respect 48 S.C. No.719/2015 to other mahazars said to have been conducted by I.O. i.e., PW.17 remained unestablished as none of the panch witnesses of concerned mahazar have supported the case of prosecution. Under these circumstances, pocket calendar and conducting of panchanama of the dead body is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1.
53. It is the specific case of the prosecution that accused No.1 after committing murder of deceased Venkatesh with the assistance of accused No.2 who was an auto driver and tenant of accused No.1 in order to disappear the evidence of murder took the dead body in his auto to the Rayasamudra tank and thrown the dead body into the said tank. However, except a note mentioning that accused No.2 is absconding, so far no investigation has been conducted in respect of accused No.2 in respect of alleged offence punishable u/s 201 r/w 34 of IPC. Thus, there is no independent corroborative evidence to support 49 S.C. No.719/2015 the case of prosecution. However, no credibility cannot be attached to the hostile witnesses.
54. The prime witnesses on whom the prosecution mainly relied were PW.1 and PW.15 Nagaraj and they have completely turned hostile not supported the case of the prosecution. No direct evidence is forthcoming in respect of alleged incident. From the available materials on record and also from the available evidence no incriminating materials are forthcoming to establish the case of the prosecution. Except the evidence of one I.O., medical officer and other police officials none is before the court. However, the said evidence of official witnesses becomes formal in the absence of supportive evidence of independent witnesses i.e., to say except the testimony of police officials and medical officer and one investigation officer no material witnesses are supported the case of the prosecution. No acceptable evidence is placed to establish the motive to 50 S.C. No.719/2015 commit the murder of deceased by the accused No.1 in the absence of supportive evidence, as such no reliance can be placed on the evidence of medical officer and investigation officer to convict the accused.
55. In this context, it is preferable to rely on the decision of the division bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2017 Cr.R.394 (KLT); State of Karnataka v/s Puruvangada Bopanna and others, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed that the conviction cannot be recorded when all the witnesses turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.
56. From over all consideration of the evidence on record, it is obvious that in order to prove the committal of offence of murder by the accused No.1 51 S.C. No.719/2015 prosecution in the absence of supportive independent material witnesses, the evidence of Doctor and police personnel and investigation officer remained for consideration and their evidence is formal in nature suffers from want of corroboration with the independent witnesses. Thus, this court opined that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused No.1 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Accordingly, points No.2 and 3 are answered in the Negative.
57. POINT NO.4: In view of the above finding on points No.1 to 3, this court is of the opinion that, the evidence on record is grossly insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 for the aforementioned 52 S.C. No.719/2015 offences. Hence, he is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this court proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Invoking provision u/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 302 and 201 r/w Sec. 34 of I.P.C.
The bail bonds of accused No.1 and his surety bond stands cancelled.
Bail bond executed by accused No.1 u/s 437-A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.
MO.1 - Black coloured with white stripes full sleeves Shirt, MO.2
- cement coloured pant, MO.3 -
Banian, MO.4 - Blue coloured 53 S.C. No.719/2015 innerwear seized under P.F. No.54/2015 and MO.5 one stone seized under P.F. No.35/2015 are ordered to be preserved till disposal of criminal case against absconding accused No.2.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required u/s 365 of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I / Sr. Sheristedar, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this 6th day of November, 2024) (MALA N.D.) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.54 S.C. No.719/2015
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:
PW.1 : Thimmarayappa
PW.2 : Chalapathi
PW.3 : Srishyla Itagi
PW.4 : Paramananda Methri
PW.5 : Muniyappa
PW.6 : Manju
PW.7 : Srinivasa Babu
PW.8 : Mohanakumara
PW.9 : Dr. Venkata Raghava
PW.10 : Hemantha Kumara
PW.11 : Sathish Kumar
PW.12 : R. Muniraju
PW.13 : A. Muniraju
PW.14 : Sakappa
PW.15 : Nagaraja
PW.16 : Jayachandra
PW.17 : R. Vasu
PW.18 : Prashanth
PW.19 : N. Venkataramana Reddy
55 S.C. No.719/2015
PW.20 : Murugesh
PW.21 : Manjula
II. For Defence:-
-Nil-
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 : Report Exs.P.1(a) : Signature and (b) Ex.P.2 : Statement Ex.P.3 : Further statement Ex.P.4 : Portion of statement Ex.P.5 : FIR Ex.P.5 (a) : Signature Ex.P.6 : Portion of statement Ex.P.7 : FSL Acknowledgment Exs.P.8 to : Photos P.11 Ex.P.12 : Endorsement Exs.P.12(a) : Signatures and (b) 56 S.C. No.719/2015 Ex.P.13 : PM Report Exs.P.13(a) : Signatures and (b) Ex.P.14 : Copy of opinion Ex.P.14(a) : Signature Ex.P.15 : Spot mahazar Exs.P.15(a) : Signatures to (c) Ex.P.16 : Inquest mahazar Exs.P.16(a) : Signatures to (c) Ex.P.17 : Seizure mahazar Exs.P.17(a) : Signatures and (b) Ex.P.18 : Calendar Ex.P.18(a) : Signature Ex.P.19 : PM report (marked twice) Ex.P.19(a) : Signature Exs.P.19 : Portions of statement to P.21 Ex.P.22 : Report Ex.P.22(a) : Signature Ex.P.23 : Portion of statement 57 S.C. No.719/2015 Exs.P.24 : Property forms and P.25 Ex.P.25(a) : Signature Exs.P.26 : Report Ex.P.26(a) : Signature Ex.P.27 : Portion of statement Ex.P.28 : FSL Report IV. For Defence side:- -Nil-
V. List of material objects marked:-
MO.1 Shirt
MO.2 Cement coloured pant
MO.3 Baniyan
MO.4 Blue coloured innerwear
MO.5 Stone
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE,(CCH-65),
BENGALURU CITY.